The most compact and lightest in the history of fast zoom lenses. Thanks to the revolutionary downsizing "XR" technology employed by Tamron in the development of high-power zoom lenses such as the 28-200mm and 28-300mm, the dramatic compactness that makes this lens the world's smallest and lightest is achieved. Its compactness makes it look and feel like an ordinary standard zoom lens, yet the versatility that a fast constant maximum aperture offers will definitely reshape your
photographic horizons.

I have used this lens as my all around lens on my 40D. I even sent it back to Tamron as it got close to end of US warranty. They cleaned it calibrated it, and made it like new. It has never failed me. Focus is good. I would buy another in a heartbeat!!
Not many 6yr reviews.

Apr 24, 2015

dhphotoOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 15, 2003Location: United KingdomPosts: 12812

Review Date: May 2, 2012

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Sharp, good contrast, useful range on full frame, constant f2.8 max aperture, comes with a hood

Cons:

No full time focusing, no 24mm at the wide end, no image stabilisation, buzzy AF motor, extends quite a lot

I'm not sure why there are two Tamron 28-75mm lenses listed here in the reviews as I think they are actually the same lens.

My copy was bought used and is really very good. I use it on a 5D and 5DII and it's sharp, light and reliable.

I've mentioned that it's buzzy and doesn't have full time focusing but the IQ is the important thing and that's surprisingly good.

May 2, 2012

Vernon SampsonOfflineBuy and Sell: On

Registered: Apr 28, 2007Location: United StatesPosts: 42

Review Date: Apr 22, 2012

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

light weight, very sharp, solid build for the price

Cons:

none

I give it a ten because for the price range and it delivers an excellent product. I wish I had the same lens with at 24-135mm.
Yet we all know that changes the cost. So for what it is, it's perfect. I bought it new about 2008 from a local camera store on Lakeshore in Oakland that has since gone out of business.

Apr 22, 2012

JiiaOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 1, 2010Location: FinlandPosts: 0

Review Date: Dec 10, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Very sharp, speed, PRICE

Cons:

Slow AF, focus haunt, vignette on full frame, lens creep after some years

This was my very first lense that I bought for my EOS 5D. It has almost L quality sharpness at very low price. The sharpness is good even on big aperture.

I bought my piece secondhand so the zoom ring had loosened in use and it had terrible lens creep. Fortunately the lens has a lock so this is not a big issue.

The only big flaw this lense has is the AF. It works well in bright conditions but even at dim lighting it starts to haunt a lot. In darkness it doesn't work of course.

This lens is not really designed for full frame and you can see it in some vignetting on the corners of the photo. It can be fixed manually but it gets very frustrating after some time.

Overall this objective is superb in its price range and I would recommend it to every hobbyist. My dad has this same objective and my girlfriend has the 17-50mm version and they're both extremely satisfied with their purchase.

Dec 10, 2011

h00liganOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 3, 2010Location: United StatesPosts: 2172

Review Date: Aug 21, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Sharpness, price, speed

Cons:

Flares like a monster, cheap hood and caps

Indoors this lens is pretty good, I could see buying another as a backup...outdoors it seems to find a way to flare (and it's an ugly flare) in nearly any situation. Even with the cheap hood attached it flares easily.

For the price it's hard to complain..the lack of flare resistance would give me pause using this for an outdoor lens...as would the 28mm wide side.

Aug 21, 2011

tcluneOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: May 17, 2011Location: United StatesPosts: 2

Review Date: Jun 16, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $475.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Sharp, bright, reliable focus, no CA

Cons:

Significant barrel distortion at the wide end

I use this lens as my main walking-around lens on my Nikon D5000. It is sharp wide open and tack-sharp from f/4 on. On the DX body it is sharp corner-to-corner and has no noticeable vignetting. Unlike my Tamron 90, there is no LoCA at all with this lens that I can see. I have had absolutely no problems with the focusing on this lens, even in very dark indoor conditions. It's BIM is fast enough for anything that I shoot (I don't do sports shooting, so some folks will have more rigorous requirements in ths score than do I) and adequately quiet for my purposes. Some folks find the lens to have a yellowish tinge, but I don't notice that. It focuses closely enough to satisfy my routine close-up needs, although it is not a marco lens. But for filling the frame with a flower blossom, it is all that you will need.

The one thing that I find suboptimaly about the lens is its pronounced barrel distortion at the wide end. It is simple barrel distortion that cleans up easily in pp, but I find that I want to remove the distortion with this lens at wide focal lengths more than is true of any other lens I own. If you are willing to do that as part of your post work-flow and use a cropped sensor camera, you'll probably be very pleased with this wonderful inexpensive standard focal length zoom.

Jun 16, 2011

GOVAOfflineImage Upload: On

Registered: Nov 23, 2002Location: United StatesPosts: 1306

Review Date: Nov 7, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Small, light and super sharp.

Cons:

None.

I sold my Canon 24-70L and kept the Tamron which I got used here.

It was very sharp at f/2.8 - super light and tiny compared to L Canon.

My copy was just extraordinary. Many complain about the build quality, but my lens went through a lot and always performed well.

Since then, I switched to a cropped body and tried Tamron 17-50VC. I was hoping to cover same range. Well, the 17-50VC was not usable at f/2.8 - it was just terrible. Besides, it was much heavier and larger.

The Tamron 28-75 is just that good.

Nov 7, 2010

Pierre_BOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: May 21, 2010Location: CanadaPosts: 2

Review Date: Oct 21, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Price, price, price. Constant 2.8, light, great image quality if you have a good copy

Cons:

Slow af, cheaper build compared to Canon, noisier AF

For anyone on a budget and not wanting to spend the Canon L prices, the Tamron 28-75 is a great choice. If you get a good copy of this lens (I did on my 2nd try), the sharpness will amaze you. I rented a the Canon 24-70 and shot some test shots at home. While not scientific, I found the Tamron was sharper at 5.6 and up, the Canon being sharper at 2.8.

The Tamron is lighter than the Canon and costs 1/3 the price. To note though that it is slower to focus in low light. Which can be a problem if you do alot of concerts and such. I shot a dance show with the Tamron and Canon and preferred the Canon's speed of focusing. Not a huge difference, but noticable. It is also noiser than the Canon.

I have shot weddings, portraits, concerts, landscapes with this lens and have not been disappointed (other than the slower AF)

I would recommend this lens to anyone who is looking for a good quality f/2.8 constant lens. I will be buying the Canon when a new 24-70 is released. Why? Because my shooting style has me doing more low light and I will benefit from the few advantages the Canon offers. I will still keep this lens though as it makes a fantastique travel lens due to it being so much lighter than the Canon.

Here are some examples of shots with the Tamron. I dont do much post processing other than basic lightroom stuff as I shoot in raw.

Very sharp @ all focal length @2.8. Bought it 2 years ago and thought if this is sharp I can imagine how good the canon 24-70 mm 2.8 L lens would be. Saved up enough money and ordered the canon from B&H. Did a controlled test and was dissapointed how the canon performed. Sent back the canon and reordered another exact canon lens thinking that I had maybe a bad copy. Did another controlled test and again the tamron came out ahead. Tamron was sharper at 28, 50, and 70 mm @ 2.8. Both lense held their own @ 35 mm. Tamron was lighter to carry around and easier to handle.

Cons:

Not as well built and rugged as the canon lense.

Aug 19, 2010

rhembeinOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 30, 2008Location: CanadaPosts: 408

Review Date: Aug 16, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

VERY sharp MACRO! Excellent within 20feet or so. GREAT DEAL for the $$$.

Cons:

Hunts for AF in low light.

Bought this lens about a year ago new. My copy is EXTREMELY sharp! This is a MACRO lens and does AMAZING macro shots!! I get asked a lot by other photographers what lens I use for my ring shots, this is it!

100% crop: Works very well for portraits as long as they are rather close, within 15 feet it's nice a sharp. Always soft when larger, farther group photos.

Aug 16, 2010

CameraShyChickOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 17, 2009Location: United StatesPosts: 0

Review Date: Jul 27, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

price, lightweight

Cons:

vignetting wide open, does not perform as well as expected in low light.

The vignetting of this lens at the wide end is quite annoying. While the vignetting can be remedied during post-processing, it's annoying none the less. For what I paid, I don't feel TOO terrible provided that it is 2.8.

Jul 27, 2010

tororoOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: May 26, 2010Location: JapanPosts: 39

Review Date: May 31, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Weight, size, 2.8, sharpness, price, filter size, bokeh (for zoom)

Cons:

Build quality, slow AF, vignetting at wide open

When I cannot take EF 24-70mm 2.8L due to its weight and size, I take this lens and it has been doing the job. Sometimes you don't know if the image (shot at F11) was taken with EF 24-70mm 2.8L or this Tamron lens. However, you need to get a good copy. If you are not sure, I suggest sending your copy to Tamron for tuning.
The build quality and AF are the downside of this lens. Bokeh is not bad at all for this type of zoom lens.

I bought this lens a few years ago for my 20D.
It has served me well as my main workhorse lens since.
My original copy had faulty focusing, I sent back and replacement was spot on. I can't really fault the lens, it produces sharp pictures and for a 2.8 zoom it's dirt cheap.
I have recently upgraded to a 5d and will probably upgrade my main lens to the Canon 28-70 2.8 (resisting so far cause of weight/price) but I need that big red ring to give me credibility at weddings!

May 18, 2010

tellOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 25, 2003Location: United StatesPosts: 1427

Review Date: Dec 4, 2009

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

SIX YEAR WARRANTY. Fast accurate focus. Nice colors

Cons:

Older copies might not work properly on a 5DMKII. Be careful buying used.

I bought this lens six years ago for my 10D. It worked very well through a 20D, a 30D, a 40D and then I mounted it on a 5DMKII. It became very unreliable. I found my sales receipt, sent it in, and two weeks later it came back working better than new! Five years nine months and FULLY covered. Why the heck won't Canon do that with their product?

Anyway, for the price you can't beat it. 28 might be a bit long for a crop body. I used to run into problems when shooting receptions on tight dance floors. However, a 10-22 paired with this lens makes a nice reception hall combo.

Dec 4, 2009

Daan BOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 15, 2007Location: NetherlandsPosts: 7865

Review Date: Aug 17, 2009

Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1

Pros:

Weight, size, price

Cons:

Weird AF problems made it unusable

I got this one used for a couple of bucks.

It showed two problems on both my 1Ds3 and 5D2:

1) I had to micro adjust the AF on both bodies. But at MFD it needed no MA, at medium distances it needed +8-10MA and at infinity it needed +15MA.

2) When using the lens in portrait mode, I only got hazy unsharp results. No matter what MA values I tried. Using the lens in landscape mode generated sharp results at the correct focusing distances/MA values.

I liked the weight, size and price of this lens, but if it can't focus...

Maybe I had bought me a "lemon". Luckily I could return the lens to its previous owner.

maybe :
build quality - should be better
AF - should be more accurate in low light, and i need FTM:(

For it's price the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is a bargain, excellent image quality, especially when you stop down until f4.

Quite sharp at wide open mainly in the centre area, good for portrait.

More better than it's competitors from canon in the same price line.

I have bought as used half year ago, and i'm absolutely satisfied with it. I'm not professional just hobby photographer.

In sharpness is almost the same than the 24-70 2.8 from canon L grade.
Ok, the canon has more fast and accurate af and more better build quality and maybe better color, but look at the price tag.
it heavy, bulky, looks like the brick compared to tamron's 28-75 2.8 witch is only ~500 gr

For pro works i would recommend the C 24-70 2.8 because of its build quality. But is you are a hobby photographer like me and want a fast walkaround lens with excellent image quality it is your lens.